About your Search

20130512
20130520
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. he said basically the revisions to the e-mails are what we described as a manipulation of the cia to get the truth that you want. he referred to it saying it was clear from the get-go that terrorist activity was involved in the attacks in benghazi, those that left four americans, including the u.s. ambassador there dead. today we heard from mccain as well as senator kellie ayotte, saying they want further testimony from hillary clinton, then secretary of state. here was representative issa earlier today, explaining the priorities to his committee. >> was the response correct? could it have been better? why weren't things at least tried or revved up to be tried. afterwards, how could you change talking points 12 times from what seems to be relatively right to what seems to be completely wrong? >> what i hear being assessed is all kinds of ulterior motives. i don't believe they existed. i don't think you can question that there was ma levelens on the part of the president, on the part of the secretary of state or anyone else. it was a very unfortunate incident that turned in to be,
investigation was to determine who leaked details about a cia operation in yemen which foiled a terrorist plot. and while people like rnc chairman reince priebus suddenly emerge from hiding to call for the attorney general's head on a platter, holder, himself, said today he recused himself from the decision to seek those media records to avoid any conflict of interest. but that he did support the investigation into a dangerous leak. >> it is the top two or three most serious leaks that i've ever seen. it put the american people at risk, and that is not hyperbole. it put the american people at risk. and trying to determine who's responsible for that, i think, required very aggressive action. >> and as mr. holder prepares to be grilled by the house judiciary committee wednesday, it's worth noting this whole investigation was called for by members of congress such as senator john mccain. >> i call on the president to take immediate and decisive action, including the appointment of a special council, to aggressively investigate the leak of any classified information on which the recent stories wer
, critics say it came up short. this new push stems from revelations that the cia's original talking points used by ambassador susan rice in the days after the attack had undergone significant edits by senior administration officials. >> for the president's spokesman to say well there were only words or technical changes made in the e-mail is a flat-out untruth when we know any reference to act of terror or al qaeda were removed from those talking points and it was done at a deputy's meeting just before susan rice went -- >> would you call this a cover-up? >> i'd call it a cover-up. i would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was wi willful removal of information which was obvious. >> he said untruths by the way. he did not use the word lie. >>> former defense secretary robert gates defending the administration's handling of the attacks in libya. >> based on everything i've read people really didn't know what was going on in benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment was or threat was without ha
there was no there-there. on friday we learned the cia talking points went through 12 rounds of changes with the heavier than usual previously thought involvement of the state doe apartment and the white house. that it was outlined in a series of e-mails. here's what the president had to say about it all today. >> the whole issue of this, of talking points, frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow. the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. suddenly three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. there's no there-there. and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations. we've had folks who have challenged hillary clinton's integrity, susan rice's integrity, mike mullen and tom pickering's integrity. it's a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. they've used it for fund-raising. >> was the president right? is the issue of how the talking points were changed a political sideshow? u.s. congressman michael turner is on the oversight and government
that perhaps benghazi talking points or e-mails back and forth between the state department or cia are not as compelling or understandable for most americans. but in this case it's difficult for the white house, particularly when they're having to comply with all kinds of investigations and everything else that's going to happen with congress, we're just seeing the beginning of these hearings and it's a big deal. i will point out the "new york times" has a great piece today looking at there were actually some liberal groups lumped in among these 400 groups, the vast majority of them were conservative. but there are about two dozen liberal organizations that got extra scrutiny. >> i wanted to ask you with our next topic, as a journalist your perspective on the controversy around the associated press, here's what came out on politico: "conflicting information is emerging over the process the justice department used to approve the subpoenas for associated press telephone record." >> it's difficult for me to take a view here. i'm a journalist, i've had many sources i protect and i wou
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5